aurora

as a videophile, i continue to look to see what out-of-print vids are being re-sold.

if/when i find any i think of interest to BT i'll post them.

meanwhile, linc.cent. is still SUPPOSED to be planning to reissue these Live From Lincoln Center programs as its golden anniversary kicks in. tho' when ballet will be addressed and when/if the Makarova GISELLE and SWAN LAKE will be included remains to be seen.

I wouldn't mind seeing the R&J with Makarova where McKenzie forgot to take off his warmups for the death scene.

I lost my taped video of this years ago. I'm guessing that will never be released though

THe fouettes described (with the kick) are just the Russian way of doing fouettes - extending side instead of having the stirring motion. I'm surprised Kourlis doesn't know this. Not my preferred way of seeing fouettes but not surprising in a Russian trained dancer.

well, yes and no. First I agree it is surprising Kourlas doesn't know this, but to expand upon the subject a bit...

One it seems more typical of the Kirov dancers than the Bolshoi dancers. So perhaps it should be called the Kirov or Maryinsky version, not the Russian.

see Osipova:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lYICgpHZrM at 7:30 (sorry I have seen her do better fouettes than these but it was the first I found)

or for a very different example, Ananiashvilli:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ky_bW3T60J0

which is more kick, but still does have a degree of whipping motion.

furthermore, I do think Somova's lurching is distinctive from others, even within the Kirov. Yes the "Russian method" is more kick than "stir" but look at Tereshkina (who is the best technician of the Kirov dancers I saw in NYC):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TnAkuVTAhU at around 8:43. She most definitely does the "stir" variety (and they are lovely, despite the bad video quality)

or watch her in the don q fouettes (the same as I posted earlier for Somova)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=122BRcm3Po4

big difference, and to me, much better!

a halo of platinum hair." .

...a point was established already that it is yellow.

LOL! Is there a Hair Style Talk site somewhere? I'm guessing there is.

I think there is plenty to criticize in her dancing without making fun of her hair. I wouldn't exactly call it a halo, but I was much more interested in Kourlas' description of her fouettés:

fouetté turns embellished with darting kicks — were full of juicy aplomb

she certainly did "kick" a lot in her fouettés--but I thought this was awful, she looked jerky and off balance. In fact with the exception of Tereshkina, I didn't think any of the Kirov stars had very pretty fouetté turns. But Somova's were absolutely the worst--she positively lurched in my view. So to see those turns especially praised is rather shocking to me.

I found this on youtube but one, they look considerably better than what I saw in NYC, and two the angle obscures her lurch when she comes off pointe. Still I don't see them as model turns

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uODhUQb8lPg

In the 2007 YAGP finalists montage on YouTube, the only dancers in classical or neoclassical roles with huge extensions were dark-haired.

One of the posters in the thread thought that the blue tutu was the costume for "Pharoah's Daughter", and the dancer wearing that costume was blond, but there was nothing exaggerated in that short clip.

that tutu is inded from "Pharoah's Daughter," and that dancer is Jensen. And as Helene says--nothing exaggerated.

Isn't Whitney Jensen the "American Somova"? I am thinking about a tall, hyper-extended, somewhat-vulgar (my opinion) blonde teen-ager who butchered Lacotte's choreography for Pharaoh's Daughter at the 2007 YAGP finals? Tricks over substance and style.

Sorry but she totally made me think about Somova while watching her in the finals.

Varna used to have higher standards...if I'm thinking about the same person.

She is blonde. I would not call her hyper extended, however. Her extensions to the side are high, but not out of the (currently) ordinary, and from the clips I've seen her arabesque is perhaps a bit on the low side. Nor have I seen evidence of Somova's extreme distortion of line.

I'm guessing from the blonde, however, that this is who you are talking about.

I have no objection to calling a 16 year old vulgar as did another poster, if you put yourself in this sort of competition you are asking to be judged. I do, however, think it in rather poor taste to do so without doing the leg work to confirm that you are in fact discussing the dancer you think you are. There are clips of her on youtube and I'm sure you could google her to confirm if she did indeed perform Pharoah's Daughter at 2007 YAGP.

If you are going to assess a dancer negatively I think it behooves you to make sure you are talking about the right person.

I wonder what happened to the old sets and costumes...that's not something you just throw away, is it?

I believe they said at the Tudor night that the sets had been sold. I wonder if they are still in existence and if, perhaps the owners might loan them to the company--you would think it would behoove them to do so.

Thank you for this thread, Sacto. From all Russian-language accounts, this has been a very major debut. Kondaurova is on her way to becoming the top lyrico-dramatic Mariinsky ballerina of her generation. Tereshkina is the bravura dancer par excellence, while Obraztsova is the leading romantic-soubrette ballerina.

I don't suppose you could report a bit about what was being said in the Russian-language accounts...

I'd love to hear more about this debut!

Why I liked Citizen (to continue my report of the October 26th 1:30 PM performance):

I loved it when the "other people" came on stage. Sunday afternoon these folks included some Baker's Dozen dancers (who had just performed) still in costume, a few stagehands, and a man carrying a two-year-old little boy in his arms. How very Don Redlich, I thought.

on sunday evening, David Hallberg and Marcelo Gomes (both in the next piece, Pillar of Fire) both came out too!

I liked that part as well

I was there on tuesday, I don't have a lot to add but my 2 cents...

Ballo:

I thought David was fabulous, I'm not as familiar with the ballet as I should be, so I can't say if it was "true to the piece" but he looked fantastic.

I cannot warm up to Michelle Wiles. I don't really know why, but I don't enjoy her dancing. I thought the soloists were all lovely, and really enjoyed Leann Underwood, whom I don't really remember noticing before.

Flames:

Why does Daniil Simkin have to look so young? I know he is young, but while he was stunning, I fear it will really limit him as a dancer. The only major role I can see him taking on is Romeo.

I thought Sarah Lane was very disappointing. She really doesn't interact with her partner. I thought she was very underpowered. She fell out of pirouettes and off pointe. Granted the only time I've seen this piece live before was with Osipova, so she had a lot to live up to, but she didn't even live up to her partner. I also thought their mugging for applause after their intro was embarrassing. They got applause, and kept milking it. People were hardly clapping and they just kept on taking bows. I know *I* was clapping just because it was so uncomfortable.

By the end they GOT the applause (and largely deserved it, at least he did), but the begging for it was unpleasant.

Overgrown Path:

I don't have a lot to say except that I very much enjoyed it and would have liked to see it more than once this season. But alas no. It was nice to see the principal dancers Paloma and Julie Kent integrating themselves and being so much a part of what is basically an ensemble piece.

Brief Fling:

I'd never seen this before, and I'm not always a huge tharp fan, but I really liked it! For one, the costumes are phenomenal!

Xiomara is not one of my favorite dancers, but I really enjoyed her here, she didn't mug, as I sometimes feel she does. I've been impressed with Maria Riccetto all season--she's not a big dancer and the smaller scale of city center really suits her I think. Misty was great, as, indeed she was all night. Someone said it was her night and I can't disagree. She danced 3 roles in 3 very different pieces and seemed totally committed to each.

I wish I could see this piece again too.

no simkin yet? and veronika sadly still among the soloists.

on the upside, at least she's still here!

(That said, please let some promotions being forthcoming!)

Oh, I thought "marking" was when the dancer used his/her hands as a reminder of the steps.

Thanks, Hans.

I would say that would qualify as marking to some extent as well.

When you are learning a piece marking is especially useful because it allows you to get the steps into your brain without having to do them full out as many times.

Also if you know part of a piece and can execute it perfectly, marking that part allows you to conserve energy so that you can concentrate on the part that is giving you difficulty.

A tiny clip is up on youtube (from opusarte)

We would have to add “The Company” to that list, as well, I think. “Center Stage” is no masterpiece, but it’s also a ballet-centered film. There's also "Nijinsky" with George de la Pena and Leslie Browne, and the curio "Spectre of the Rose."

There is also Dancers from 1987.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092822/

I haven't seen it in forever, and I don't remember it being terribly good. I wouldn't mind seeing it again though, just for the dancers in it.

Thank you for that long and detailed report. I've never seen the troupe but I hear they're terrific. Has anyone else seen the show (or the Guangdong trouple in another performance)?

I believe you can find it on youtube--portions rather. It is pretty easy to find. And incredibly impressive of its kind.

Nor did I finish the "Golden Bowl" but did read the easier "Ambassadors" and the incredible "Portrait of a Lady" (version 1).

I often wonder whether anyone ever enjoys some of Henry James's novels such as The Golden Bowl and The Wings of the Dove. I find them almost unreadable, and I tried hard because I really love many of his works(Portrait of a Lady, The Europeans, Washington Square), and I feel like I am missing out...

I love his short stories/novellas, and always stop reading his novels in the middle. I don't know why. I *like* them, it is just if I get at all distracted while reading, i can't get back INTO them.

Yup, I also had problems with 'Vanity Fair'. And Tom Jones and Huckleberry Fin. Also (so far) Anna Karenina - I'm working on it. Also any Anthony Trollope.

I love Tom Jones, I guess I'm the only one here who did!

Hated Anna Karenina though--we read it in HS, and I was just screaming "kill yourself already!!" by the end of it.

That, Crime and Punishment and (shudder) Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man were the books I read in school that if I wasn't a neurotic overachiever, I *never* would have finished.

Yuck.

[. . .] having reservations about a work is not the same as calling the work "ghastly," "appalling," "inane", and "twaddle."

And all that in a review only 1 paragraph long, and mentioning only a single dancer.

What's wrong in principle with finding a ballet, even an often programmed ballet that has lasted for decades, "ghastly," "appalling," "inane", and "twaddle"? Macaulay specifies what he dislikes about it: what he considers its

tacky, trite and often thumping orchestral arrangement of Karl Czerny’s original piano studies

as well as the fact that it

[pieces] together dissimilar chunks of the ballet lexicon into one sensationalist collage after another.

There is also what he considers perhaps its

silliest episode the one in which members of the corps de ballet, male and female, lie immobile, faces on the floor in apparent humiliation, while the three “star” dancers sail through virtuoso steps

.

And then there is the

ultra-circusy sequence when the stage blacks out except for two narrow diagonal paths of light (an X) so that dancers can come hurtling along in run-run-jump!-run-run-jump! sequences? (Will one smash into another?)

.

Agree or disagree (the ballet leaves me cold), but he's shown us the basis for his judgment, and in so doing invited readers who feel differently to examine and perhaps sharpen their own judgment. That's what I want from a critic.

He may have said all those things, explaining his hatred of the ballet, but NOT in the review I cited. Is the reader meant to recall an earlier (?) review of the ballet by a different company (I assume, since this was his only review of ABT in the piece) to put his comments in a proper context?

But even the divine Arlene Croce has some reservations about Lander Etudes. The following is from a danceview review by Alexander Meinertz, "Etudes & Danish Modernism."

Educated, enlightened, and spoiled by the works of George Balanchine, Americans have become accustomed to appreciate and value choreography and, indeed, the art of ballet by the standards dictated by the Balanchine repertory...Arlene Croce [notes that]:

"The ballet Etudes should have proved once and for all that classical forms have a structural coherence but are no more intrinsically dramatic than the harmonic series in music. The choreographer, Harald Lander, justly equates classroom combinations with Czerny keyboard exercises; the result is a smashing non-ballet."

Yes, but having reservations about a work is not the same as calling the work "ghastly," "appalling," "inane", and "twaddle."

And all that in a review only 1 paragraph long, and mentioning only a single dancer.

Boy, what did poor Etudes ever do to deserve "tackily sensationalist and musically repellent"? Or what did ABT do to it?

nothing ABT did to it.

If you read his review of it, he detests the ballet. I don't think it would have mattered how well anyone danced it, he thinks the piece itself is a piece of s__t.

Just noticed that City Ballet is down-sizing its Spring Season from nine to eight weeks:

Important Dates for Ticket Buyers

Ticket buyers will want to note the following dates:

...

April 28 - June 21, 2009 Spring Season

(In 2008: April 29 - June 29. In 2007: April 24 - June 24.)

Why?

aren't there renovations to the theater forthcoming? I know I read it was to seriously curtail the opera seasons, perhaps that is the reason for the downsizing of nycb's season as well?

It is also quite obvious that Macauley only saw Veronika Part as the Lilac Fairy but skipped her Nikiya (reviewed by a second stringer) and her Odette/Odile. So he is dismissing her for "posiness" based on his reservations about one performance - which many here thought definitive. He is entitled to his opinion but he didn't see the full range of her work this season at ABT. On the other hand, he didn't bitchily dismiss her as "boring" which is what he has done in the past but acknowledged her ballerina potential.

I have to say, I was impressed that he included her with the ABT ballerinas, when he specifically did *not* mention several principals and was downright hostile to several others (Paloma and Xiomara). I was also surprised he seemed more willing to be well disposed to her than in the past (I remember the boring comment as well).

Given his past treatment of her, his comment on her, caveat notwithstanding, was one of the few surprises of his summing up.

I don't mind tattoos per se, but I have an aversion to them at formal occasions. I just don't think tattoos and evening gowns mix. They cheapen the look. On the other hand, a tuxedo covers up the majority of tattoos. I suppose if men's formalwear exposed tattoos, I wouldn't like it either. I don't like ankle bracelets or anklets either, especially those worn under panty hose.

Ugh! I think I'm turning into my parents.

I actually agree. Though if there are so MANY tattoos that they become a look (like full sleeves), i actually mind it less than a few largish obvious ones peeking out from elegant clothing in a way that just sort of haphazard.

you can see my tattoo in some of my wedding photos though and I really don't think it detracts from the look (which was Victorian)

And yeah tattoos under stockings are ugly. I suppose the solution is to just get backseams tattooed on ones legs! (i know someone with this).

I then saw she had pierced cheeks--right in the middle--with tusks about 3 inches long curving out. She didn't look like a freak (I don't mind that, whatever it is, anyway I may be sometimes perceived as one for different reasons), but like this devil. I just wouldn't have been able to talk to her, because it didn't seem like a decoration but rather this hostile creature, and it was not like a ring or any other kind of piercing.

i can understand being taken aback by that.

I got my first piercing in england (first piercing which wasn't via a piercing gun in my ear)

The piercer was this incredibly pierced woman, who totally intimidated me. She had 60+ piercings. And initially looked scary to me.

And you know what, she was really really sweet. And generous and funny. And said that I was much better about the pain than she was!

I do know what you are saying, I'm just bringing this up, because in the mid 90s to early 2000s I was really really gothed out. And my liking that aesthetic had nothing at all to do with how other people perceived me--except perhaps in the small sense that it weeded out people who were close minded in a way that wouldnt have appealed to me. But people often thought my look was a sign of some sort of agression, or hostility. I can't tell you how many people told me that I was totally intimidating and "scary" but then they met me and realized i was really nice and friendly.

Sorry that REALLY went OT, but they aren't totally unrelated. Sander0 has brought up that he doesn't find body mods aesthetically pleasing or enhancing, but for a lot of us who have such mods, and perhaps in some contrast to more socially acceptable body modifications (say, fake breasts for example), those of us who get them, do it because WE like the way we look with them, not to appeal to someone else's aesthetic standard.

Personally I also have a sense of appropriateness about them. If I am teaching, I don't wear my nose ring (though I think my students would really like it if I did!) because it isn't acceptable to my university. I don't agree with this, but I accept it.

Similarly, when I'm doing classic 40s/50s style burlesque, I don't wear my nose ring--I'm emulating or recreating images of traditional feminine beauty--and my nose ring does not fit in with that aesthetic. If I'm doing a more modern routine, or a classic routine at a more "alternative" event--I might wear it, because it fits in with the aesthetic, or tweaks things in a way that thumbs its nose at the same 50s aesthetic I'm evoking.

I tend to prefer the old-fashioned kinds of tattoos, sailors, etc.

I like those too, and at one point was quite tempted to get a pin up girl tattooed on me.

I personally don't have more tattoos because I have become known as a performer for my skin (i know that sounds weird and i've certainly done nothing to encourage it, but it is true)--its very white and is one of my trademarks.

On me, at this time, more tattoos would detract from a natural asset. But in the future, who knows!

Since Cristian kindly moved this over here, I will comment on it...

So tats are best when they are meant to note some event in one's life? Why exactly do people need painted pictures on their bodies to hold onto a memory?

I don't know if they are best, but it is certainly a major reason why people get tattoos.

I do think they are better (personally) if they have some significance for the person. I didn't get my first one to mark an event per se. But it was an image I had been drawing for about 6 years when I got it, which had deep significance to me, and reflected something about how I see the world, being based on something in a book that had a real, great and lasting impact on me as a person.

there is nothing *wrong* with getting an image just because you like it, but unless it means something to you personally, I think it is easy to get tired of it--and given the near permanence of tattoos...

It is also not that people NEED the image to hold on to a memory--It is a way of marking and commemorating an important event. I know many people who have gotten tattoos that were inspired by the loss of loved ones for example. Some are quite literal (a friend with a portrait of his father on his arm), others are couched in symbolism (a friend who incorporates roses into multiple tats out of love for her mother who she lost at an early age and whose middle name was Rose).

Do you see bod mods as enhancing the human body or decoration like the way clothes change the way a person looks?

I see them as a combination I suppose. But given their permanence they do require more thought than clothing choices!

I happen to find many of them aesthetically pleasing.

Are they meant to communicate something about the person wearing them? Do the wearers expect to receive questions and comments about them or for them to be unnoticed and pass without comment like "plan" skin or un pierced bods?

I find them provocative and don't know what the protocol is about reacting to them. I sense it's rude to say anything but a compliment.

Ideally (for me) they are meant to communicate something about the person "wearing" them. But some people just like the aesthetic. And that is fine too!

I think most of us HOPE that we wont receive rude questions or comments about them. But we fully expect that we will.

My tattoos are small and rarely noticed--one is on my hip so it is rarely seen, the other is on the back of my neck, so depending on how my hair is or what clothes I'm wearing, it is seen or not.

On the other hand I have a facial piercing and used to have a second. And I have gotten many many comments on them over the years (I've had them since 96 and 98--so over 10 years)

I personally never mind questions if they are respectful. Often people want to know if they hurt, which gets really boring to answer the 100,000th time. But I try to not be annoyed by it because people are curious, and they want to know.

On the other hand if you look at me like i'm something you stepped in on the street, and then ask me, i'm likely to be less than polite about it. And yes, this happens. And no, it is seriously not cool.

as far as it being rude to say anything except a compliment--yes, it rather is. People seem to think it is ok to say incredibly rude and offensive things to you if your look is not the norm--and its very offensive.

If your friend had a haircut you didn't like--would you just say that to her? no, you'd keep your opinion to yourself.

But body mods, or even "strange" haircolors make people feel they can say anything they want in response.

I used to dye my hair different colors--and people would often feel it totally ok to say things like "oh i hate that color, i thought the last color was much nicer". Think about that for a minute--would you say such a thing to someone who put blonde streaks in their hair? (And I'm not talking about situations where your opinion is asked for). Of course you wouldn't. But people seem to think if your aesthetic is not the norm, such insulting remarks are totally ok!

Do you ever find bods mods offensive and distracting? Can you not see them or do they make an statement which is always present?

Offensive? Only if they are an offensive symbol. Ugly and distracting, hell yes, but I think that about a lot of clothes I see walking through the city every day. If its someone else's body I have no call to be offended by it!

As for their visibility--Most people i know with body mods sort of forget they have them. They become part of you, like your nose, and you just don't think about them. Personally I almost never SEE my tattoos given their locations, so I forget I even have them. And I really don't see my piercings any more either--they are just there. I might look weird to you, but to me, I look totally normal

how is that for a long answer. I hope I haven't gone too OT--as this really isn't about mods on ballet dancers, but there are a lot of recurring questions about body mods and this seemed a good way to respond to a bunch of them in one fell swoop as it were.

To bring it back to ballet--my nose ring makes it easy to spot me at the ballet, and come say hi! or run away from the freak if you choose to do so!

Questions about tatoos in real life: I assume that those tatoos around the biceps (barbed wire? crown of thorns?) are meant to call attention to large, young muscles. What happens when the muscles shrink and the skin sags? Can large and prominent tatoos be removed? Is there significant cost or pain involved in doing this? (I ask because even the most muscular and/or nubile of young dancers just MIGHT come to regret some of their more public markings at some point in their lives.)

I've heard this as a reason for not getting tattoos many times--the fact is, if those muscles/skin are saggy and old. They are going to look saggy and old with or without tats--and just aren't going to look good. So why not get the art and have that as a memory of what once was?

I'm very much in favor of only getting tats that are meaningful to the person--not just a whim "I want a tattoo!"

there is laser tat removal. It is apparently both expensive and painful, but quite doable.

there is also getting a tat covered with a new tat--it is hard to do with a large piece with lots of blackwork, but is doable. I'm thinking of doing this with a tattoo I got at 18 or 19--just because it doesn't look the way I'd like it to. I'm still not sorry I got it.

It is one of the nice things about piercings over tattoos, when you are sick of them, or don't feel they are appropriate to you at your current stage in life, you just remove them.

That said, I don't regret any of my body mods, and miss the piercings I've lost for various reasons over the years

Aurora--tattooed, pierced, and happy with that!